J-S Letter: Politics requires compromise

Tuesday

Oct 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Ron Paul, despite being a libertarian, knew that electoral success required compromise, not so much with his principles-which his congressional seat became a platform for-but in terms of what was best for his constituents. It wasn't enough to be a spokesman for a political ideology, or to simply vote "no" on spending bills he thought were wasteful.

Ron Paul, despite being a libertarian, knew that electoral success required compromise, not so much with his principles-which his congressional seat became a platform for-but in terms of what was best for his constituents. It wasn't enough to be a spokesman for a political ideology, or to simply vote "no" on spending bills he thought were wasteful. He was wise enough to realize that his supporters demanded a return on their investment in him; and, like it or not, that meant pork-i.e., a return of their hard-earned tax dollars to his district. And that, as his record shows, is what he did. Otherwise his time in Congress would have been short indeed. This not only reflects Paul's understanding of how the system works, of course, but more importantly, it's a reflection of Ron's appreciation for what his constituency expected of him. In short, Paul was more than familiar with the wants and needs of the people he was chosen to represent; and because of this, was seldom caught off-guard by anything they brought to his attention.

Unlike our dearly departing Mr. Sacia, who, despite being re-elected as many times as he had, ultimately did not have an appreciation for the wants and needs of his constituents. The mega-dairy fight epitomized this. Not only was he caught with his proverbial pants down when it came to under-estimating the opposition to the Bos facility, he stubbornly "stuck to principle"--pacification of Bos's father, whom he promised the dairy to, along with faithfully responding to the lobbying efforts of Big Ag, Farm Bureau, etc.-all of which he believed was in since with the hearts and minds of his constituents. Not only was he mistaken on this point, but Sacia showed utter contempt (because no politician of our region could be so ignorant) for the elements of his constituency that opposed the dairy the strongest, and, it must be said, whom often stood strongly with him on a number of various other issues, especially social ones. So contemptuous, in fact, that many of these folks voted against him, and for perhaps the first times in their lives, voted Democrat. (And this animosity also transferred over to the gubernatorial race, where dairy opponents voted for Quinn because of his support of their efforts.)

Sacia did win re-election. But his opposition was never very strong, if and when there was any at all. A worthy opponent could have run on the tag line of an old Wendy's commercial: "Where's the beef?" For all of his talk, including how he stood for principle, what does his district have to show for all of his years allegedly serving its best interests? How much of a return on our investment have we had with Mr. Sacia's "leadership," say, in downstate/upstate battles versus the Madigan Machine? What has so much jousting with political windmills really wrought us in terms of real numbers, namely pork?

A wise man once noted that politics is the art of compromise. Sadly, as this phase of his political career comes to a close, Sacia's canvass, it must be said, renders hardly a brush stroke.